Mosul Vote Hampered By Suspiciously Unexplained Bureaucratic Red-Tape
Another revealing piece of information, from Fayrouz this time. Observe the shambles we call blogger unity as we work together slowly to peel back the curtain on events and cast a little of our blog light.
One of my concerns originally when I heard about this whole (halts self) about these elections was a statement months ago that elections would not happen in some areas of Iraq. At that time those areas seemed to be areas like Fallujah and Ramadi, and maybe parts of Mosul. Which has grave implications for proportional representation, when certain significant areas aren't even represented at all.
Anyway, Iraqi's have been taking to the streets in villages around Mosul where voting has not taken place yet. These people do not sound like they are going to suffer any weak excuse for having their electorate tampered with. "The desire to vote is great" stresses Father Ganni to Asianews.
Goodness. What an election. So far everything seems to have gone according to plan ~ the voters are happy, the not-voters put in a good non-showing, the resistance protected the polling booths (theoretically, some of them anyway) the rest of the world's press showed up to neutrally observe, the skeptics stood their ground under duress (yes we like balance, an equal proportion of skeptics and believers is what keeps democracy ticking, like a metronome) and Iraqi's are taking to the streets to uphold their rights.
Come on skeptics cheer them along, you know, do your blog thing ~ murmur "charade" or something. As I said, think metronome.
In summary. The voters voted, and the not-voters stayed behind on lookout duty watching for discrepancies and signs of corruption. And you know what, I think the overall combined effect is great. Some may not realise it now, but Iraq will be far stronger for this. Stronger for the people who braved the trip to the polling booth and stronger for the people who had the strength of conviction to declare boycott and stick by it despite the propaganda wars waged by dubious other bodies. I feel this is a good thing in the long run. It shows balance. It shows people making choices and ultimately building something not dictated by external foreign policy.
Voters and not-voters alike, all have something to be proud of.
Analytical meander ~ If 60 percent of Iraqi's voted evenly between five or six main lists, that averages out to about say 10 to 15 percent of the vote for each list. Now relate those percentages to 40 percent of not-voters. That's a significant and unified portion of the vote. Imagine if there were a box on the ballot paper that people could have ticked which said "not-vote". Imagine if that little box were on every ballot paper globally ~ now that would make an interesting election, wouldn't it.
7 Comments
Continuation of analytical meandering..
Don't intend to rain on anyones parade or anything.. But, I would hope that located on the ballot in future cases similar to Iraq would be several 'not-vote' boxes. Well, perhaps at least three. A 'not-vote' because you don't like the process. A 'not-vote' becauses you have been suffiently threatened enough actually not to vote. Perhaps a brave buddy or mother with 2 year old child could cast this ballot for you. And a final 'not-vote' because you don't think the insurgency offered quite enough protection to suit you.
metronoming along...
TheBlueFinger
emigre, do some research before you write dumb things. how can the sunni areas with low voter turnout not be represented at all? as long as 1 vote gets cast, then someone from those areas is going to win an election to represent them. plus all of the lists had sunnis on it as well. you just don't know what you're talking about.
Frank
Frank
One vote represents one person. If the population of an area were one and that one person voted we might consider your supposition legitimate.
We might also consider that if the population of an area were one and if one candidate from the area were elected, that the voter and the candidate would be one and the same. Such an area, an area with only one candidate, would have a ballot paper with only one candidate printed on it. In which case we have a dictatorship situation. Here we might sumise that dictatorships only work democratically in populations of one.
Aren't logic games fun.
Blue
Then you would be conducting a survey rather then an election. Following your suggestion, we could in theory have three boxes for Republicans too, "because my parents voted for them", "because my mortgage repayments depend on it" and "because the other candidate didn't look much better".
A not-vote means "not voting for any candidate". It is very symbolic and a little esoteric. How one arrives at the point is inconsequential, it is the conviction which matters. Contrary to popular belief not-voters are not at all apathetic. Not-voters are quite firm in their political faith(lessness). I know not-voters who steadfastly have never cast a single vote in their entire life. It is definately a political decision.
As long as that conviction is yours, my dear. As long as that conviction is genuine and not coerced out of you...
First time I ever voted was this year...loool. I'm serious. I may never vote again. Depends upon the issues.
TheBlueFinger
Blue
The psuedo-ink is beginning to rub off. You may have voted in an election last year, but not in any election in the world this year.
looool yourself, oh partisan'd one.
This past January 3rd, I was able to vote in the local Parents of Girl Scouts Association. Mint over peanut butter cookies, Em. A very high priority in my book.
TheBlueFinger
Post a Comment
<< Home